What cau$ed the decline?

[TedNugent]

Actually it's the consumerization and commoditization of the industry, leading to profits over art.

And then you realize that the pricing of art within the fine art world has it's own absurdities. I think you can pin a lot of this thing down on the irrationality of market dynamics. But yes, profit has a lot to do with art, how it's made, and how it is valued, so I don't think you can just say the word "profit" and instantly associate it with commercialized shit. Profit can be strongly associated with fine art as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/03/a...nting-takes-more-than-a-good-artist.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/08/a...he-imprecise-world-of-art-identification.html

Among the 300-plus items she put up for auction was an oil sketch that copied “Salisbury Cathedral From the Meadows,” one of the best-known works of the great 19th-century English landscape painter John Constable.
Listed as the work of a Constable follower, it sold for just £3,500 (around $5,200).

In January, the painting, now deemed a true Constable by Ms. Lyles, was sold at Sotheby’s in New York. It fetched $5.2 million.

 

[Crichton]

I've thought about this issue and I think it pretty much all comes down to one thing: larger budgets for games. There are a lot of factors contributing to that, some reasonable and some unreasonable, but the core issue is that if you have a larger budget, you have to sell more copies or sell them at a higher price to break even and at some point that means you have to have a huge audience. I don't know that it's true; but most people seem to think that only the simplest games can be popular enough to attract that huge audience. Hence the "dumbing down".

Why the huge budgets? A lot of it seems to be wasted on ever more elaborate art and voice-overs. More polygons and more lines of voiced dialog means less of everything else. Deus Ex: HR is about half the game the original Deus Ex is despite having so much more money lavished on it. The only solution I've seen so far is games from smaller studios for smaller audiences. For whatever reason, it seems as if publishers just weren't interested in that business model until Kickstarter showed that it had legs. Out of sheer chance, some of these games will be made without spending all their resources on art and VA. It doesn't mean that there is going to be an improvement in games in general, but it means that that there is now a business model for making games that aren't just schlock.

 

[Norfleet]

New hypothesis: Decline is intrinsic to the human race and occurs naturally, everywhere.

This isn't a new hypothesis, and it isn't intrinsic to the human race alone. Decline occurs in everything, and occurs naturally, everywhere. It's the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The entropy of a closed system must always increase. Thus, the decline, as the manifestation of entropic decay, is inevitable and inexorable. Everything is always in decline, and even "incline" is simply the cause of greater decline in the end, for local entropy can only decrease at the cost of an even greater increase in global entropy, which means the situation merely gets worse faster.

 

[Ninjerk]

 

[Wintermute]

Planetfal was released in 1981. All those games are (mostly) text-based. Maybe I can start by playing those... However, the originals came with manuals you can read while playing. Apparenlty the manual had maps in it.

Planetfall was released in 1983 (Zork - 1980, Zork II - 1981). The manual did not have a map. Well, it did have a sample map (see Appendix E in the manual here). but it wasn't for Planetfall. It was giving an example of how to map. You could buy hint books with the actual maps in them, and those have all been downloadable online for years now, so GOG may be including those in the docs for these games. But having bought/played/finished Planetfall when it came out, I know damn well I made my own maps. If you're looking for decline from Infocom, look way further down the line when they started adding graphics.

 

[Doctor Sbaitso]

TedNugent good post. Profit over art I used as a term to describe the arrival of big business practices to the game industry.

Game sales concentration to chain game stores, with massive influence on sales. Shit sequels, dumbing down so casuals can be a hero, Day 1 DLC, pay to win, microtransactions, subscriptions, fucking ads everywhere, blatant product placement, retread sequels on yearly cycles, always online DRM, MMOs insidiously crafted not for fun but to appeal to subconsious triggers that keep people pating. All for one singular purpose: maximize profits.

 

[Sceptic]

If you're looking for decline from Infocom, look way further down the line when they started adding graphics.

Hey, Zork Zero was pretty cool. Besides the Legend games, which copied the text-with-graphics look of late Infocom, were all at least good, and Eric, Gateway and Timequest were fantastic.

 

[No Great Name]

Planetfal was released in 1981. All those games are (mostly) text-based. Maybe I can start by playing those... However, the originals came with manuals you can read while playing. Apparenlty the manual had maps in it.

Planetfall was released in 1983 (Zork - 1980, Zork II - 1981). The manual did not have a map. Well, it did have a sample map (see Appendix E in the manual here). but it wasn't for Planetfall. It was giving an example of how to map. You could buy hint books with the actual maps in them, and those have all been downloadable online for years now, so GOG may be including those in the docs for these games. But having bought/played/finished Planetfall when it came out, I know damn well I made my own maps. If you're looking for decline from Infocom, look way further down the line when they started adding graphics.

The GOG version of the Zork Anthology includes those hint books with maps inside of them.

 

[daveyd]

While greedy publishers certainly played a huge role, I think the biggest problem is everyone's obsession with everything being shiny and new. Graphics are of course the most obvious aspect where we see this manifest- if a developer releases gameplay footage or screenshots that look like they could have been from a game released more than a few years ago, everyone complains about the "cheap", dated graphics. It doesn't matter if it was made by one person, graphics whores will shit all over it if it doesn't look the AAA shit they're used to. That's not to say that everyone should jump on the deliberately retro hipster game bandwagon either, but we certainly shouldn't write off a game entirely because of simplistic or otherwise mediocre visuals. Fancy graphics are obviously a bit part of the cost involved in making a game. It's been getting better with a lot of game engines becoming more affordable for smaller studios, but of course it still takes a lot of time to make a game look nice and time is money.

And of course gameplay mechanics can also be seen as outdated. Many Codexers strongly prefer turn-based combat systems, but a lot of us are old geezers. A kid whose experience with RPGs has been limited to twichy action RPGs like Skyrim, the latest JRPG button mashers, possibly some streamlined RTwP a la Dragon Age would most likely react to turn-based tactical combat with the thought that it is "boring" because it "takes forever". And to be fair to those seriously deprived, and misguided youth, there is some truth to this, particularly for older games; IIRC some fights in Fallout 1 & 2 can take a pretty damn long time. But technology is at the level now where this doesn't have to be an issue. Turn-based combat can now be executed very quickly. Unfortunately there are still some who apparently see turn-based combat as archaic and action-oriented combat is superior; including Matt Findley, the fucking president of inXile.

It only takes a few years of decline for most people to forget what a really good game looks like. The only thing worse than people's memory is our attention spans. From 2002-2013, those of us who love PC-centric hardcore RPGs had to for the most part either keep playing the classics, a handful of obscure indie titles, or settle for more casual/ console-oriented action games with RPG elements. These games often have some redeeming qualities (e.g., enjoyable story) and well, beggars can't be choosers.

Fortunately thanks to things like crowdfunding, the rise of digital distribution, etc. there have been a lot of incline in the past couple of years. And 2015 is looking to be the best year for CRPGs in a long, long time. We can only hope it lasts awhile. These kind of games will probably always be considered a niche market. And you can blame all of the lazy gamers with short attention spans who aren't going to look for anything better than the AAA "RPGs" they're used to playing because they don't know anything better exists. And blame the fucking game journalists who don't inform them about anything better, probably because it isn't in the financial interest of gaming sites to praise anything other than the AAA shit that generates their ad revenue.

So what caused the decline? Everything but mostly stupid people.

 

[naossano]

I would like to point out that i first tried TB games way later than i first tried real-time games. I never known a period in which the Turn-based games were the norm. I was already pretty used to RT games when i first tried a TB game. It took me some time to get used to and enjoying. After my first TB game, it was easier to get through the second TB game. After a while, i was able to compare benefits and flaws of both systems.

Although even if TB games were uncommon when i first tried one, even if it took me some time to get used to a TB game, i was used to have to take some try to discover the gameplay of a game. At that times, there was much more genre available, different gamestyle, different plateform etc... Not every game was different, but there was enough differences that any players was quite often confronted to games they weren't used to, and quite often had to take times to discovers those genres, gameplay etc... Trying something new was much more common, especially with the huge progresses in technologies in the end of the 20th century. New gamestyles or new commands appeared every few years.

Currently, if we except indies, most commercial games, has very similar gameplay, often streamlined, and more often cross-plateform, with gameplay and rules similar than the game you played before, and the game you played before. With challenge reduced and years passed without having to try something new, without having to spend hours to discover the gameplay, without being pushed out of comfort zones, some new players might find alien to have to discover a gameplay, or have to think about how to overcome an obstacle, not necessary because the game they usually play are better, but because they are familiar with it.

I also disagree about TB games being "old-school". The thing is, it doesn't predate real-time. It coexisted with it for decades and wasn't the norm. Real-time games were pretty popular too when some of the most famous TB games were released. They weren't released in TB because of poor technology. They were released in TB by design choice. That doesn't mean that TB is better or worse, just that it was possible then to be able to choose between different design. Making the TB games disapear only means making disapear choices for the audience and designers, it doesn't mean getting rid of the old way. It is regression.

 

[belowmecoldhands]

Planetfal was released in 1981. All those games are (mostly) text-based. Maybe I can start by playing those... However, the originals came with manuals you can read while playing. Apparenlty the manual had maps in it.

Planetfall was released in 1983 (Zork - 1980, Zork II - 1981). The manual did not have a map. Well, it did have a sample map (see Appendix E in the manual here). but it wasn't for Planetfall. It was giving an example of how to map. You could buy hint books with the actual maps in them, and those have all been downloadable online for years now, so GOG may be including those in the docs for these games. But having bought/played/finished Planetfall when it came out, I know damn well I made my own maps. If you're looking for decline from Infocom, look way further down the line when they started adding graphics.

Hmm, I mistook it for Planetfall. Tthe comment I read was regarding Zork Zero:

by

Rogh-sensei
I had this collection (except Planetfall, I lost the floppy) back in the early 90's and learned how to type on an old MacBook with these games. There's just one thing missing from this collection, and that is the "feelie" book that came with it back then. It was full of useful tips and tricks and replicated some of the original feelies that came with Zork Zero, including the Flathead family calendar and the map of the mines. Without these items to refer to, a player may experience migraine-inducing frustration. That said, these are amazing titles that belong in any adventure afficionado's collection. Watch out for the grues.

link: http://af.gog.com/game/the_zork_anthology?as=1649904300

I first read about Planetfall years ago. I was like to try it. I feel a deep ned.

Regarding old games... I just recently installed VMS Empire from the software center and tried playing it. I first played this game probably over a decade ago. It was apparenlty first written in the 1970's. There have been many versison since then. No telling how new/old the version I'm running is or who worked on it. Anyway, I'm kind of tired of working around its console interface. It's almost as bad as the linux console commands. I'm sure not all old text games are this confusing to use.

 

[Bumvelcrow]

Hey, Zork Zero was pretty cool. Besides the Legend games, which copied the text-with-graphics look of late Infocom, were all at least good, and Eric, Gateway and Timequest were fantastic.

Zork Zero was long after it was too late, sadly. Some of the early Legend stuff was good, although I notice you didn't mention the Spellcasting series, which were just distracting. Is that the right word? :D

Last word on Legend - that Death Gate game they did annoyed me just as much as the books. It must be something inherent to the story, plot or world(s) that really gets on my nerves.

 

[uaciaut]

Mostly laziness, on both sides.

 

[Sceptic]

Zork Zero was long after it was too late, sadly.

In what way? The graphic Infocoms that I remember are Shogun, Arthur, Sherlock and Zork Zero. I think I like Zork Zero the most out of these, but none of them was bad. And I think they were all made after Activision bought them out following the Cornerstone fiasco. I suspect the drop in quality may have had something to do with that, but compared to say what happened to Origin after being bought out, I wouldn't say Infocom ever truly declined in terms of quality.

Some of the early Legend stuff was good, although I notice you didn't mention the Spellcasting series, which were just distracting. Is that the right word? :D

I actually like Spellcasting 101. If there is a series that declined though, this is it. 201 wasn't as good, and 301 would be Meretzky at his worst if not for Gas Pump Girls Meet the Pulsating Inconvenience From Planet X (I don't know if I should be ashamed that I can type this from memory).

Last word on Legend - that Death Gate game they did annoyed me just as much as the books. It must be something inherent to the story, plot or world(s) that really gets on my nerves.

I like both books and game. If you dislike the books as well I'd say it's not the game but the setting or plot that you dislike (or perhaps Weis and Hickman's writing, which the game imitates quite well; something I consider a positive in this kind of adaptation). That's something to be said for Legend too, they didn't truly decline when they went all-graphics. Death Gate was good, Callahan's Crosstime Saloon and Superhero League of Hoboken were great, and as far as FMV games go Mission Critical is quite good, in fact I think the only FMV games that are better than it are Pandora Directive, Overseer, and Gabriel Knigh 2. Considering there were dozens of FMV games a year at the time, that's quite something. Their only graphic games I don't like are Shanarra and Companions of Xanth, though the latter is again merely "ok" rather than truly bad.

 

[Bumvelcrow]

Zork Zero was long after it was too late, sadly.

In what way? The graphic Infocoms that I remember are Shogun, Arthur, Sherlock and Zork Zero. I think I like Zork Zero the most out of these, but none of them was bad. And I think they were all made after Activision bought them out following the Cornerstone fiasco. I suspect the drop in quality may have had something to do with that, but compared to say what happened to Origin after being bought out, I wouldn't say Infocom ever truly declined in terms of quality.

Was Sherlock graphical? I have memories of it being text only, but that was a long time ago. Anyway, yes, Zork Zero was by far the best of the last batch of Infocom games, but by this point the graphics were irrelevant thanks to the market for text adventures having collapsed. They were tacked on to attract those who liked pretty pictures but it was still a text adventure and Infocom's name was so synonymous with text that other than a complete genre shift there was no commercial future for the company. If anything could have been done to save Infocom (and I have no idea what that would be) it would have had to have occurred when they still had a following and a market share, and definitely pre-cornerstone-fiasco and Activision aquisition.

301 would be Meretzky at his worst if not for Gas Pump Girls Meet the Pulsating Inconvenience From Planet X (I don't know if I should be ashamed that I can type this from memory).

Share the embarrassment - I can quote it from memory and I've never even played it!

I like both books and game. If you dislike the books as well I'd say it's not the game but the setting or plot that you dislike (or perhaps Weis and Hickman's writing, which the game imitates quite well

I thought the setting was potentially brilliant; perhaps it was the fact that it never achieved it's potential that annoyed me. The characters were vacuous and W&H's writing was bland. I really wanted to like it, but it was just missing a spark.

 

[Zoopy Joobles]

The decline was cased by what causes all decline, the Kali Yuga.

 

[TheGreatOne]

Here's another one for you.

A Western game made for ps2 and later ported to Windows - a year before Xbox existed. And there's dozens more.

Yeah like these

Stop being so obtuse. Some no name shovelware POS doesn't mean shit in the grand scheme of things. People rag on about Fallout 3 while no one gives a shit about Brotherhood of Steel. You know why? Barely any one played it and it was not an industry changer. Neither was Shadowrun nor any of the other of the handful of Western console RPGs made in the 90s that wasn't pure popamole. When it comes to console RPGs, no Western developed title was an industry changer before Morrowind got ported to the Xbox.

 

[Telengard]

Here's another one for you.

A Western game made for ps2 and later ported to Windows - a year before Xbox existed. And there's dozens more.

Stop being so obtuse. Some no name shovelware POS doesn't mean shit in the grand scheme of things. People rag on about Fallout 3 while no one gives a shit about Brotherhood of Steel. You know why? Barely any one played it and it was not an industry changer. Neither was Shadowrun nor any of the other of the handful of Western console RPGs made in the 90s that wasn't pure popamole. When it comes to console RPGs, no Western developed title was an industry changer before Morrowind got ported to the Xbox.

If you wanna get down and dirty about it, Xbox the First was a failure. It sold less than the Dreamcast, which nail-in-the-coffined Sega's console division. That is not market control. That's not something they could do anything with. Ps2 sold over 100 million consoles. Now that is market control. (And they used it to begin making threats on the PC market.) When 100 million got sold, that generation war was over, and the PC lost. The End. After that, every developer began ramping up to sell on consoles, because publishers are not going to ignore a 100+ million market. Let me put that another way. For a publisher to ignore a 100+ million market would be pants-on-head retarded. Publishers are in it for the money, and ignoring that money would just be so dumb as to be unspeakable.

Once things go into a tech race, costs rise. When costs rise, publishers get involved to finance the big money. When publishers get involved, they go where the money is. When there is money in consoles, they sell on consoles. The fact that Sony successfully marketed the Ps1 and PS2 to 20-somethings meant that even games that would traditionally go to PC because they were for the older crowd could now be put on consoles, so there was not even that minimal barrier anymore.

Once Sony did its thing, it was over. Once FF VII sold a gabillion copies, everybody started copying them, with heavy cinematics and angst. Once Tomb Raider did so well on consoles and PC, there was no reason to make PC only games. The examples were set. Everyone started making a console division to get in on the action after that. The one thing Microsoft did is sneak in there with the 360 and steal Sony's thunder. They got to reap the consolization that Sony created and make a bundle at it by being the top console maker when all those companies console division started solidly producing games. (And they paid a bunch of FPS and 3rd person action games to go consoles, but as to that, pssh, who cares,)

 

[Nael]

Two things, one of which is the advance of technology.

If pen and paper RPGs are the penultimate in emergent, creative gameplay,

CRPGs are the degenerate spawn of P&P.

Bullshit. You are comparing apples and oranges here.

CRPGs have more in common with Choose Your Own Adventure and the Lone Wolf series than they do with PnP. The only time they bear any resemblance to PnP is when there is a human GM guiding events in game like what was possible with the Black Isle games and Neverwinters and I'm sure there are more, but the main thing is that without a human GM there is no comparison between a PnP game and a single player CRPG.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

If pen and paper RPGs are the penultimate in emergent, creative gameplay,

CRPGs are the degenerate spawn of P&P.

I don't really see it that way. First, PnP games just had all sorts of real world constraints associated with them. You had to find people/friends who were into that sort of thing, which represent a very small minority of the population. One or more of them had to be skilled/talented enough to be a good GM. The GM had to take the time to create interesting scenarios in some cases. These games could only be played when everyone was able to get together, and for this reason, could only be played for a few hours a week at best. The quality of emergent and creative gameplay depended heavily on the quality of the players and the GM, and because of that, in many cases was probably not even that good.

Second, and more importantly, I believe video games are still a very young genre, with lots of untapped potential. The most promising part of this potential is emergent gameplay, whether you are talking the next great single player procedural game such as Dwarf Fortress, or the next sandbox MMORPG like The Repopulation, or obviously games that will in the future that we have no idea about now. Theoretically, there is nothing stopping a video game from implementing a fairly comprehensive (if simplified) model of real life (which is what some of these games are already trying to do). Once games start having that, and model love, friendship, combat, environmental interactivity, economics, and most other aspects of life to some degree, there shouldn't be much difference in terms of emergent and creative gameplay between them and PnP sessions of old. Sure, there will always be some "exotic" thing someone can think of in PnP that these procedural games won't support, but in practical terms, it will be about as good, with the massive added benefits of not depending on other people and being playable anytime at home.

 

[TheGreatOne]

If you wanna get down and dirty about it, Xbox the First was a failure. It sold less than the Dreamcast, which nail-in-the-coffined Sega's console division.

No
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_(sixth_generation)#Worldwide_sales_standings

When 100 million got sold, that generation war was over, and the PC lost. The End. After that, every developer began ramping up to sell on consoles, because publishers are not going to ignore a 100+ million market. Let me put that another way. For a publisher to ignore a 100+ million market would be pants-on-head retarded. Publishers are in it for the money, and ignoring that money would just be so dumb as to be unspeakable.

Yet there isn't a single noteworthy WRPG on PS2 and publishers didn't flock to consoles when NES, SNES, Gameboy and PS1 outsold home computers by a large margin. Nintendo Wii also sold 100+ million units and DS 150+ million units, yet Western developers didn't leave the PC/console market in droves to develop games for those. Couple of exceptions aside pretty much every single Western developed game on Wii&DS is a low budget shovelware title.

The fact that Sony successfully marketed the Ps1 and PS2 to 20-somethings meant that even games that would traditionally go to PC because they were for the older crowd could now be put on consoles, so there was not even that minimal barrier anymore.

That's true enough, but again does not reflect in anyway on the game releases of the day. Alpha Centauri, Torment, Thief and Deus Ex on consoles while PS1 was dominated by Japanese developers. Tomb Raider aside the most succesful Western developed console games were platformers like Crash Bandicoot, Spyro and Oddworld. Yes PC games like Quake, Wing Commander 3/4, Command&Conquer and XCOM did get ported to PS1 but like already mentioned before in this thread, that isn't a new phenomenon either. Wing Commander was also ported to SNES, Sega&Amiga CD32 and Wizardry, Ultima, Might&Magic, Pool of Radiance, Starflight, Buck Rogers, King's Bounty, Eye of the Beholder & some other late 80s/early 90s CRPGs got ported to 8/16 bit consoles. Because the (S)NES market was bigger than the home computer market. That didn't affect the industry at all. Those games were still designed for PC first and then ported to consoles.

 

[Musaab]

I believe the decline was caused by a combination of consoles/tablets and Jews.

 

[Axe Father]

I don't have enough industry knowledge to put together the kind of hypotheses you guys are coming up with, but I am interested in what exactly makes people open to older experiences in gaming. I've always been so interested in the medium, that I don't have many biases against what I'm willing to play on recommendation, especially as far as age is concerned. Not even just in a way where I tolerate things that are not commonplace today, but where I sometimes prefer something perceived as archaic when compared with modern games.

What is that gate that has to be opened to make someone interested in playing older titles? I don't really have some predisposition to older PC titles; I never really played earlier examples until I started using DosBox to play old games I'd find at flea markets. As far as decline is concerned, I think older PC titles still offer unique experiences that aren't replicated today, which is why I get frustrated when I talk to others that won't give them the time of day even if they have the same background in gaming as me.

 

[a Goat]

I don't have enough industry knowledge to put together the kind of hypotheses you guys are coming up with, but I am interested in what exactly makes people open to older experiences in gaming. I've always been so interested in the medium, that I don't have many biases against what I'm willing to play on recommendation, especially as far as age is concerned. Not even just in a way where I tolerate things that are not commonplace today, but where I sometimes prefer something perceived as archaic when compared with modern games.

Because progress isn't linear.

I wanted to write about morality in RPG's as an example but then I've realised that the topic gets extremely complicated because it's something that even modern mainstream games can do right from time to time, there are just some extremely popular games that are severely dumbed-down in this aspect(take a guess which ones).

Then I wanted to write about puzzles in adventure games, but I've played like 20 "proper" adventure games in my life(beaten like 15 out of those) and watched my brother playing telltale games(which I wanted to compare it to the games I've played) so I don't necessarily feel like I'm "educated" enough when it comes to adventure games.

So I'll just write another post about combat systems but I'll try to put an emphasis on non-linearity of progress.

Just one rule to simplify the discussion - imagine, RPG's are nothing but combat.

You often hear that modern mainstream RPG's are in fact Action-RPG's. Let's look at 3 of them - Dark Souls, Diablo 3 and Dragon Age:Inquisition.
Those 3 are quite different aren't they? If you look at the bigger picture, Dark Souls is more of a TPP action game as far as the gameplay goes.
Diablo 3 is obviously descendant from Diablo which was the "line" created by merging RPG stats and controls and top-down action game gameplay.
Dragon Age is bastardised RTwP.
Of course there are games that can be places somewhere in-between of those.
Liking, or not liking the systems as a whole is more of a personal preference(some people just have popamole preferences).

Are they the only combat systems in RPG's? Of course not. There are blobbers(turn based/real time), (non-bastardised) RTwP, "tactical" turn based systems etc.
Today it's little different thanks to kickstarter and indie boom but in let's say 2008 you've didn't had a choice. So why have people played old games? Because they've found the combat more appealing and new games didn't provide them. That's what "opened them" for the experience.


It doesn't mean old games did everything right and cloning them will produce high-quality game though. I've never considered anything ideal. I always say there is a room for progress.

The decline's era biggest mistake was abandoning the progress in every "design school" outside of the most mainstream ones, and I don't mind those "casual" designs either - for example I really like Fable despite it being incredibly popamole(codex will probably lynch me after that post and I wouldn't be surprised if my next average posts will be 10 times as long than they're now, you know, gotta stack those newly earned dumbfuck tags somewhere), but the industry railroaded design into tight tunnel and didn't allowed to do anything different. That's what hurt.
In case of Fable it meant that your character shouldn't age or change his body build by stacking strength skills(let alone growing cool-ass horns when you were evil) - as it would create consequences(so if somebody wanted to be slim, skeleton guy, he had to invest in magic and if he used magic too often, his hair would turn grey) which was something somebody considered as "not fit for wider audience". So as you can see, nothing was safe from decline. Even the game that I would probably find in this thread being named dozens of times and cited as a decline flagship(as I've did with Oblivion).

That "mistake" seems to be sign of "incline" too.

The reason why PoE beta generated so much butthurt was - it's just standard RTwP game. Which is nice if you're bored after beating IWD2 for 20th time, but the gameplay doesn't feel like going anywhere. Now compare it to Divinity, which isn't that much less broken mechanically than PoE but it sure felt fresh even though it was a "homage" to games that were more than two decades old. The reactions are quite different, aren't they? Why?

 

[Infinitron]

Ps2 sold over 100 million consoles. Now that is market control. (And they used it to begin making threats on the PC market.) When 100 million got sold, that generation war was over, and the PC lost. The End.

Again, the argument isn't really about "why consoles won". Consoles were always going to win. Except for a brief period in the 80s, consoles have always been winning.

The argument is really about why we got multiplatform games instead of the PC simply being left alone as a niche platform.

blah blah blah

The reason why PoE beta generated so much butthurt was - it's just standard RTwP game. Which is nice if you're bored after beating IWD2 for 20th time, but the gameplay doesn't feel like going anywhere. Now compare it to Divinity, which isn't that much less broken mechanically than PoE but it sure felt fresh even though it was a "homage" to games that were more than two decades old. The reactions are quite different, aren't they? Why?

No